Ot. Nothing to see here, just a nuclear plant bombed and on fire…

[The-Shoveler]

1 in 10 chance.

Wow that’s kind of unsettling

[The-Shoveler]

Just watched a simulation map,

Seems you want to be somewhere in the middle of South America.

No one is targeting them.

[zk]

[quote=The-Shoveler]1 in 10 chance.

Wow that’s kind of unsettling[/quote]

1 in 10 chance of what? (And according to who?)

[Coronita]

…

[The-Shoveler]

An investment research firm is warning that while there is a 1-in-10 chance Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will end in nuclear catastrophe, investors should still be ready to pad their portfolios.

https://gazette.com/news/investment-firm-puts-chance-of-civilization-ending-nuclear-war-at-10-but-says-to-buy/article_798c95d1-8747-57f6-b767-e9349b122247.html

OK so maybe not the ultimate authority but everyday this goes on is not improving our odds that something stupid does not occur INO.

[Coronita]

Cool, we’re all dead or glowing for radioactive fallout…

I don’t know, I think the in the longer term, if we aren’t all dead from nukes, it might be better for the U.S.

We might actually have a viable energy policy that isn’t as dependent on foreign oil.

Also, this probably also gives thought to China and the chip supply chain.

Besides just a supply chain shortage, there’s serious national security reasons not to count exclusively on Taiwan, in case China pulls a Putin and goes rogue on Taiwan. Now, China is probably also having second thoughts about that, because it’s pretty impressive what the US and EU countries have done to bring Russia’s economy down on it’s knees. And it’s pretty awesome that although Russia has a lot of reserves in US obligations, they can’t access it. ha ha ha… China is probably taking note that it could be them too.

That said, with inflation, it makes more sense to onshore chip fab back in the US. Comsumers can absorb the higher cost since everything else is going up in price. Glad to see Intel, TSM, Samsung, and others expanding chip fab here in the US. Good news for tech.

Go Joe Go!

[The-Shoveler]

Re-shoring/On-shoring Assuming we get lucky (which is likely) and we just end up in a low grade cold war.

Some serious (probably dirtier then most would like to see) mining will need to be Re-shored as well.

EV’s have environmental costs too.

[Coronita]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Re-shoring/On-shoring Assuming we get lucky (which is likely) and we just end up in a low grade cold war.

Some serious (probably dirtier then most would like to see) mining will need to be Re-shored as well.

EV’s have environmental costs too.[/quote]

Yes, EV isn’t the complete solution. I think it’s more of a bandaid.

I do think it would be cool if we have more solar farms in the desert and share energy across states. For instance all that dessert in Arizona, Utah, New Mexico could be used for solar farms. Just need a way to transmit and transfer that generated electricity.

Also, it would be great if we spent more on researching alternative fuels, more friendly. I don’t think ICB are all going away. It would be great if we have a viable biodiesel, not just B20 or B30 blend.

[scaredyclassic]

The answer is bicycles. But we prefers bandaids.

[spdrun]

Bicycles and trains both to move people longer distances and deliver stuff. Electric vehicles without range limits. Maybe Hyperloops for freight as well.

[Coronita]

With over $5/gallon of gas, perhaps one of the federal and state energy policies would be to help consumers reduce consumption..

A quick and dirty solution would be just to give companies a financial incentive to allow more employees to work from home more, so they don’t need to be on the road as much.

It’s not that far off from the reality. When I was in L.A. interning for a defense contractor, they gave an employee that wanted it a free coaster shuttle shuttle that would pick you up and drop you off to and from work. You didn’t need to pay for gas and time going back and forth between the office, which was like 45 minutes 1 way. L.A. did this as one of many ways to cut down on traffic congestion.

[The-Shoveler]

Gets to the point of real Gas shortages (station closing etc…),

I think we will get some type of no/don’t commute order.

Actually not a bad Idea to get ahead of it and do it now IMHO.

[spdrun]

Forcing people to WFH will just decimate electric/clean transit systems and encourage them to sprawl out, which will actually increase driving and unsustainable development long-term. Let fuel prices rise to $5/gal. Let people make their own more efficient choices. Maybe people wouldn’t be buying 15 mpg pickups to drive to the grocery store if gas were priced in accordance with its ecological effects.

Forcing people to work from home to keep gas prices low to enable the sprawl/consumption economy is illogical.

[Coronita]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Gets to the point of real Gas shortages (station closing etc…),

I think we will get some type of no/don’t commute order.

Actually not a bad Idea to get ahead of it and do it now IMHO.[/quote]

In 1979, i remember my parents driving when fuel was rationed. Plates ending with an odd number could only fill up on specific days, even ending plates on the other days.

It’s not forcing people to WFH, it’s giving employers an incentive to encourage people to WFH, no different than handing people a trolley/bus pass for free. Better than simply reduce fuel taxes or give gasoline tax credits that Newsom is proposing.

[sdrealtor]

I want gas money from Newsom

[Author]

Posts